SADC is not Patricks pick and mix

The SADC, South Africa and other member states cannot let anyone discredit and dismantle its tribunal without also rejecting and dismantling all of its 2001 reforms, says Jarvis. Zimbabwe and its leaders cannot pick out bits of the 2001 treaty amendment they like and accept these are now all in force, while ignoring other parts that might not suit their own purposes.

Regrettably, Chinamasa sees no harm in attacking and dismantling courts that give rulings he dislikes, regardless of any wider impact.

Responsibility for formulation of government authority rests with the prime minister, who has made it known he was not consulted at all by Chinamasa on the subject of the tribunal.

However, Chinamasa has now added the government coat of arms to his personal opinions published in the media.

This aims to suggest his statements have an authority which he does not have, and a weight that his argument lacks, says Jarvis.

Zimbabwes legal representatives have repeatedly accepted the tribunals authority in Windhoek, and given undertakings to its judges that the government will abide by their rulings.

This was the government position and Chinamasas own until the tribunal rulings went against it.

A certified transcript of proceedings in Windhoek on May 28, 2008 records a statement to the tribunal by Deputy Attorney-General Advocate Machaya: Our minister of justice concurred in my discussion with him that the respondent (Zimbabwe) had an obligation to comply at the international level with the orders of this tribunal and that he was going to inform his cabinet colleagues accordingly.

It is too late to withdraw at this stage. Having submitted to the authority of the tribunal, government remains bound by its verdicts, added Jarvis.

Chinamasas claims are no more than cynical cover, aimed at giving legal veneer to a campaign of lawless oppression, which clearly violates the rule of law, the SADC treaty and other treaties that are binding on Zimbabwe.